>Instantiating a ProtoObject currently does crash the system (that's a
>little strong: let's say that rather that it causes the system to
>abort deliberately) because of a recursive "message not understood"
>error.  I personally consider this to be a (serious) bug.

Indeed, adding messages #new or #basicNew to ProtoObject class for 
the purpose of trapping an error seems to crash (abort) the system as 
well.

My point here is that given these fundamental differences (inability 
to instantiate an object or to add a class-side method without 
aborting), I am uncomfortable treating ProtoObject as the fundamental 
"object," thinking that Adele's excellent account of the class 
hierarchy remains accurate if we qualify the word instance and class 
with "proper," using that to distinguish Object hierarchy instances 
and classes from ProtoObject stuff.  Relegating ProtoObject to that 
nether world of theoretical objects like nonstandard numbers, the 
square root of negative one and the like seems useful for those who 
are the target of SQR.

On the other hand, I would only feel comfortable about this 
pedagogical approach if what we said were entirely accurate, which is 
why I wanted a paragraph or so about non-proper objects (or classes).

I would greatly appreciate any volunteer with a fundamental insight 
into ProtoObject and how it change's Adele's model who could take the 
time to rewrite the Squeak hierarchy section for SQR.